1. What is this?

A high-level, very casual, and often self-deprecating look at trends in catches of Tyee salmon in Campbell River’s legendary Tyee Pool. All data exploration is being completed for fun and to learn some new tools (namely R Markdown and plotly).

There are far more technical ways of examining this data, but they aren’t as much fun - and are frankly hard. This analysis is living and will evolve over time. All results and interpretation are purely speculative and should be considered nothing more than ramblings of a fish nerd.

Normally this is where I would put pictures of all the beautiful Tyee I have captured, but that hasn’t happened yet. So far, these are the best things I have managed to get in my boat

## [1] FALSE

1.1 The Data

I have compiled the following datasets to use in this analysis. Whether they are all incorporated is yet to be seen.

  1. Annual catch records from the Tyee Club.
  2. Angling effort and undersize fish catches from Tyee Club yearbooks (2019 to 2022).
  3. Discharge data collected on the Campbell River by the Water Survey of Canada.
  4. Annual Chinook Salmon escapement data available in the DFO NuSEDS database.
  5. Annual catch statistics from the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission.
  6. Area based commercial catch statistics from DFO are available from 2001 to 2016
  7. Straight of Georgia herring spawn and catch data.
  8. Southeast Alaska commercial catch data from North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission.
  9. Hatchery release statistics from North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission.
  10. Known ocean ranges of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead stocks
  11. Chinook survival data prepared by Welch et al. 2020

This is certainly an interesting dataset, especially given it is the centenary of the Tyee Club, but it has its limitations. For example, there is no accessible information on effort (# boats per day), biological data (e.g. size, girth and age of tyees) or numbers of non-tyee salmon captured in the pool.

Download TyeeCatchData.zip

2. Let’s look at the Tyee catch data!

There are lots of ways to look at this data. I am most curious about three things:

  1. How total catches vary among years and if they fluctuate relative to escapement.

  2. When are Tyees most frequently captured?

  3. Has fish size changed across seasons? Does fish size vary within seasons?

2.1 Total catches across years.

Figure 1: Trends in Tyee Salmon captures and Campbell River Chinook Salmon escapement.

A quick look at Tyee catches (blue vertical bars) in Figure 1 shows:

  1. There is a fairly clear 4-year cycle of relatively higher catches (highlighted with shading). Which is interesting, and raises lots of questions…
  2. There has been a consistent decline in the number of Tyee salmon captured per year.
  3. There was a major crash or failure in 2014.

If we look at Escapement data (blue line) shown in Figure 1 , we can see:

  1. There has been a general declining trend in escapement (consistent with regional trends),
  2. Periods of increased escapement correspond with periods of increased Tyee catches, but not always (e.g. 2005, 2017 and 2020). Given the lack of information on effort (e.g. # of boats fishing per day) we cannot tease apart whether the lack of catches in some years is due to reduction in pressure.
  3. It is also possible that years with high escapement and low Tyee numbers were due to an increased proportion of smaller fish returning to the Campbell. Without annual information on age structure I cannot tease this apart.

Now, lets see when fish are most frequently captured throughout the season, and if there has been a change over time.

2.2 Cumulative catches per year.

Let’s take a look at how cumulative catches compare within decades.

Figure 2: Cumulative tally of Tyee’s captured by decade.

Lots of variability in total catches per year across the decade, but overall mean catches per decade are decreasing steadily from ~47 in 2000’s, to ~27 in 2010’s and 19 in 2020’s.

2.3 Effort and catches of undersize fish.

The Tyee club weighmaster has been recording the number of boats fishing morning, noon and evening tides, as well as the number of undersize fish captured throughout the season. This data has been recorded for ~8’ish years, however, data is only publicaly available from 2019 onwards.

Table 1. Summary of undersize catches and effort from 2019 to 2022.
# Fish Captured
Mean Capture Probability
Year Tyee Undersize Total Total Boats Tyee Undersize Overall
2019 13 181 194 2204 0.317% 4.09% 4.41%
2020 14 108 122 2337 0.300% 2.82% 3.12%
2021 36 210 246 2461 0.747% 5.75% 6.49%
2022 6 86 92 2136 0.113% 2.10% 2.21%

2.4 When fish are most frequently captured.

The Tyee season runs from July 15 to September 15. I need to pick my battles with my wife and boss. Let’s see which days I should be fighting for!?

2.4.1 First Tyee of the Year

Let’s see when the first Tyee are most frequently captured each season. Alright, looks like I should have fished tonight (August 1) and need to fish August 6. Note that values for August 2 and August 7 are somewhat misleading as the plot is showing the number of fish captured on opening day.

Figure 3: Number of Tyee captured on date when first Tyee is registered.

2.4.2 When the most Tyee’s are captured each year.

Figure 4: Total fish captured by date and decade

This plot will become a lot more interesting once I can get my hands on some historical data. But for now, we can see:

  • People either do not fish, or do not catch fish before late July/early August. Given the way catches increase through August I am thinking it is the latter.
  • Peak catches occur in mid to late August.
  • August 18-19 is a must fish kind of day.
  • Good luck on July 30.

OK, well now we know not to bother fishing until early August, that I should book the off the last 3 weeks of August and that odds are that 2023 is not going to set a new record for most Tyee’s captured. But who knows.

2.5 Does fish size vary within or between seasons?

Figure 5: Mean annual weight of Tyee Salmon captured since 2002.

So overall mean fish size is relatively consistent across years. That’s good news, but maybe there are better ways to look at this data. Bar plots can be deceptive.

Figure 5: Mean annual weight of Tyee Salmon captured since 2002.

Well that is a bit better. The overall mean size of Tyee has stayed relatively stable across years, which makes sense given there is a minimum size limit for Tyee - but there also appears to fewer bigger fish being captured each year.

Figure 6: Weight of Tyee salmon caught per day since 2002.

What a mess. Pretty hard to identify any relationships from that figure.

2.5.1 Historic fish size trends.

Historic catch record data is available back to 1923, but only for newly registered members. So any fish captured by existing members are excluded. Either way, the data set still includes over 2880 records and offers a peak into the historic size range of fish captured in the Tyee pool.

If we plot the mean weight for each year we get the figure below which shows a fairly strong decreasing trend in fish size since about 1950.

Figure 7: Mean annual weight and SE of all fish recorded in the record book since 1923.

Given the variability in the number of fish that were captured each year, lets try to standardize the process by selecting a random sample of 10 fish from each year (or all fish if less than 10 were registered in a year). This produces the figure below. Which also shows a strong decreasing trend in fish size since the late 1940’s and early 1950’s.

Figure 8: Mean annual weight and SE of 10 randomly selected fish recorded in the record book since 1923.

2.6 Daily catches per year.

To round this out, let’s just have a look at the total number of fish caught per day over the past 20 years.

Figure 4: Total fish captured by date and decade

Without additional data there is not much else to look at. So let’s change gears and start poking around at what may be contributing to observed patterns in catches and size.

2.7 Who’s who in the zoo?

Let’s have a look at who has been catching the most fish! First we will look at who has caught the most fish in the past 5 years, then we will have a look at all the data.

Table 2. Number of fish captured and rowed by anglers and guides since 2018.
Total Tyee
Tyee Rowed
Tyee Angled
Member Rank (Rowed + Angled) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
Mike Stutzel 1 17 1 1 1 5 2 4 14 1 1 0 1 0 0 3
Peter Wipper 2 7 0 0 1 2 1 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Mike Dougan 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maegen Dougan 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5
Mike Newton 4 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 3
Mike Mackie 6 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paul Curtis 6 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Paul Pearson 6 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Bob Main 9 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Bruce Herkes 9 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2
Darla Hunt 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
Floyd Ross 9 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jim Clowes 9 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Mark Thulin 9 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nathon Miller 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3
R.D. Berger 9 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Randy Killoran 9 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Reid Herkes 9 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Rick Janzen 9 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Trevor Gains 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Yari Ivanisko 9 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Brett Gardner 22 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Burt Campbell 22 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Greg Askey 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
John Woodward 22 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Jules LaCroix 22 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Karen Hutton 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
Ken Duke 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ken Enns 22 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ken Mar 22 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Mark Trenholm 22 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Morris Trace 22 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ric Dionne 22 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Richard Holman 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Rick Joubert 22 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rob Austin 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Roma Boutilier 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Steve Spiers 22 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tim Hanika 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Tyson Berkenstock 22 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Walter Stutzel 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Allyn Harvey 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Amaro Lozano 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Andrew Rippingale 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aren Knudsen 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Ben Campbell 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Beth Newton 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Betty Gage 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Bob Barrett 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Bob Joseph 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Brady Thulin 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Brodie Doherty 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Bruce Aikmen 43 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bruce Preston 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Bryan Rickert 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Carole Beaudoin 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Chris Nicholas 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chris Sheilds 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Clayton Stoner 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cyena McIntosh 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Dan Hatch 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Dan Heaven 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Darrell Mustard 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Dave Lavigne 43 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dave Ludvigson 43 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dave Nutt 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Dave Soper 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
David Duke 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
David Nutt 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
David Richter 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Davin Saunders 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dawn Hamilton 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Diana Clowes 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Don Syroid 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Doug Ellis 43 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dustin Marsh 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Dwayne Mustard 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dyson Ivanisko 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Forrest Owens 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Gary Lawson 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Gary Soles 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
George Deagle 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gerald Hinsberger 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Glen Daradics 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Glen McIntosh 43 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grant Rosswarne 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Grayden McInnes 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Greg Main 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Jaret Knowles 43 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jeremy Maynard 43 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Joe Boutilier 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
John Bentham 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
John Chalmers 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
John Plant 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
John Todd 43 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Judy Janzen 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Kalla Shields 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Kalyn Sutherland 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Karren Hutton 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Klaus Weger 43 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landon Mackie 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Laurie York 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Lisa Nicholas 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lyndon Duke 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
MacKenzie Collins 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mark Lagos 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mike Hamilton 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Miles Latrace 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Monique Weeks 43 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Montagu Lee 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Nathan Boutilier 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Nathan Lagos 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Paula Davies 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Raeya Mackie 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Reaya Mackie 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Reg Mackenzie 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Rich Fryer 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Rick Hackinen 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rick Tillapaugh 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Rob Turko 43 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Robi Gareau 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Roger Gage 43 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ross Spiers 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rowen Berkey 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Roy Grant 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ryan Newton 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Sarah Deagle 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Scott Laird 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sean Batty 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Shane Roberts 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Terry Blasco 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Tim Samuels 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Tom Hooge 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Trevor Erickson 43 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Troy Perras 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Trygg Carlson 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A total of 83 fish have been registered since 2020, or which Mike Stutzel has captured 13 or 16%. In the current dataset, nobody has stats like that! Randy caught (rowed or angled) the most fish in the 2000’s (n = 23 of 384 registered) and 2010’s (n = 15 of 268 registered), but his fish represent 6% of the total catch in each decade. Mike, if you read this and feel like rowing around some deadweight give me a shout!

Note though that this summary does not include Tyee that were recorded but not registered (e.g. fish captured or released by non-registered anglers).

Table 3. Number of fish captured and rowed by anglers and guides who have caught more than 5 Tyee, per decade since 2002.
Total Tyee
Tyee Rowed
Tyee Angled
Member Rank (Rowed + Angled) 2000’s 2010’s 2020’s Total 2000’s 2010’s 2020’s Total
Randy Killoran 1 41 23 15 2 40 0 0 1 1
Ken Mar 2 33 22 6 1 29 3 0 1 4
R.D. Berger 3 28 20 7 0 27 0 0 1 1
Paul Curtis 4 26 14 4 2 20 4 0 2 6
Jeremy Maynard 5 24 16 8 0 24 0 0 0 0
John Woodward 6 23 11 5 1 17 4 2 0 6
Ross Spiers 7 22 12 9 1 22 0 0 0 0
Chris Plamondon 8 20 11 1 0 12 8 0 0 8
Mike Mackie 8 20 5 13 1 19 1 0 0 1
Roy Grant 8 20 12 7 1 20 0 0 0 0
Mike Stutzel 11 19 0 3 12 15 0 3 1 4
Reid Herkes 11 19 13 4 1 18 0 0 1 1
Peter Wipper 13 18 1 9 6 16 1 0 1 2
Jim Clowes 14 17 9 5 2 16 0 1 0 1
Norm Lee 15 16 8 5 0 13 1 2 0 3
Floyd Ross 16 15 4 3 2 9 4 2 0 6
Ken Enns 16 15 5 3 1 9 5 1 0 6
Bill Tomicki 18 14 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 14
John Barker 18 14 5 4 0 9 2 3 0 5
Shara Berger 18 14 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 14
Burt Campbell 21 13 5 4 2 11 2 0 0 2
Mike Kauertz 21 13 2 4 0 6 5 2 0 7
Mark Thulin 23 12 2 8 2 12 0 0 0 0
Paul Breukers 23 12 9 1 0 10 2 0 0 2
Brant Peniuk 25 11 8 1 0 9 2 0 0 2
Peter Kruse 25 11 10 1 0 11 0 0 0 0
Tim Samuels 25 11 0 0 0 0 6 4 1 11
Troy Winslow 25 11 1 0 0 1 7 3 0 10
Jules LaCroix 29 10 0 3 0 3 0 7 0 7
Klaus Weger 29 10 3 6 0 9 0 1 0 1
Travis Trace 29 10 6 1 0 7 3 0 0 3
Bill Idiens 32 9 5 1 0 6 2 1 0 3
Chris Cook 32 9 2 2 0 4 3 2 0 5
Fred Gerl 32 9 1 4 0 5 2 2 0 4
Lisa Woodward 32 9 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 9
Dale Kashuba 36 8 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 8
Gene Berkey 36 8 7 1 0 8 0 0 0 0
Joe Painter 36 8 2 3 0 5 1 2 0 3
Monique Weeks 36 8 4 2 0 6 2 0 0 2
Morris Trace 36 8 3 1 2 6 2 0 0 2
Dale Blackburn 41 7 3 2 0 5 2 0 0 2
Neil Cameron 41 7 6 1 0 7 0 0 0 0
Bruce Herkes 43 6 2 0 1 3 1 1 1 3
Greg Askey 43 6 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 4
Harry Thulin 43 6 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 6
Mike Dougan 43 6 0 2 4 6 0 0 0 0
Peter Winter 43 6 3 3 0 6 0 0 0 0
Phil Griffith 43 6 1 3 0 4 2 0 0 2
Rick Janzen 43 6 0 4 2 6 0 0 0 0
Sean Kiley 43 6 5 1 0 6 0 0 0 0
Ted Milbrandt 43 6 2 4 0 6 0 0 0 0
Yari Ivanisko 43 6 0 4 2 6 0 0 0 0
A.J. Larsen 53 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
Bob Main 53 5 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3
Brett Gardner 53 5 0 1 2 3 0 2 0 2
Bruce Aikmen 53 5 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0
Darrell Knowles 53 5 3 1 0 4 1 0 0 1
Dave Hadden 53 5 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0
Dean Bell 53 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5
Karen D’Alessandro 53 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5
Ken Fletcher 53 5 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0
Maegen Dougan 53 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5
Mike Netzel 53 5 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 5
Mike Newton 53 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 3
Paula Davies 53 5 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 5
Ric Dionne 53 5 1 0 2 3 2 0 0 2
Robert Hobbs 53 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5
Robin Modesto 53 5 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2
Stuart Wolfe 53 5 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 3

Looks like I need to try to get on with Randy Killoran too!

So nobody feels left out, here is a summary of all fish registered since 2002.

Table 4. Number of fish captured and rowed by anglers and guides who have caught less than 5 Tyee, per decade since
2002.
Total Tyee
Tyee Rowed
Tyee Angled
Member Rank (Rowed + Angled) 2000’s 2010’s 2020’s Total 2000’s 2010’s 2020’s Total
Andrew Rippingale 70 4 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 0
Bill Herkes 70 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
Bill Ostler 70 4 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 3
Brian Isfeld 70 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4
Bruce Walton 70 4 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 1
Corinne Wolfe 70 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4
Darcey Houser 70 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
Dick Knowles 70 4 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2
Don Swoboda 70 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4
James Wolfe 70 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4
John Todd 70 4 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1
Justin Horsman 70 4 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 1
Karin Plamondon 70 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4
Mark Lagos 70 4 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0
Paul Pearson 70 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2
Sean Kelly 70 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4
Shauna Schmitke 70 4 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2
Shauna Towriss 70 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4
Steve Spiers 70 4 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0
Todd Peachey 70 4 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2
Troy Perras 70 4 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 1
Bob Joseph 91 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1
Brady Thulin 91 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
Brian Kruse 91 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Brigid Pomeroy 91 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3
Chris Gauthier 91 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1
Darcy Gerhard 91 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Darla Hunt 91 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3
Dave Soper 91 3 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1
Don McPhee 91 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Doug Ellis 91 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
Ed Fellbaum 91 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1
Gary Soles 91 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
George Minosky 91 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
George Reifel Jr.  91 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Joe Watson 91 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
John Chalmers 91 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
Karen Hutton 91 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
Ken Duke 91 3 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0
Kevin Gunning 91 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0
Landon Mackie 91 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
Larry Dougan 91 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
Matthew Blackburn 91 3 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1
Mike Benjestorf 91 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0
Mike Patterson 91 3 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 2
Mike Rankin 91 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Nathon Miller 91 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
Rick Hackinen 91 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0
Roger Barriault 91 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2
Roger Gage 91 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1
Sharon Fisher 91 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3
Steve Babcock 91 3 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0
Steve Clayton 91 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3
Stuart Haigh 91 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Trevor Gains 91 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1
Walter Schoenfelder 91 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Al Frumento 126 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Anthony Mar 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Ben Campbell 126 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Bill Cosulich 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Bob Hammond 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Bradley Mah 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Bruce Kirby 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Bruce Middleton 126 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Carole Beaudoin 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Carter Coblenz 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Chad Atkinson 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Chel Bassoni 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Chris Brotherston 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Chris Nicholas 126 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
Clyde Bergendahl 126 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Dan Plamondon 126 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
Daniel Bell 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Dave Ludvigson 126 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
Dave Wardell 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
David Davis 126 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
David Duke 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
David Stover 126 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Deb Idiens 126 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Debra Herkes 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Dick Patterson 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Don Hutchison 126 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Edward Painter 126 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Ernest Anderson 126 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
Gary Brettnacher 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Geoff Bertram 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
George Reifel Sr.  126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Gerald Hinsberger 126 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
Gordon Berkey 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Gordon Dawson 126 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Gordon Gerl 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Gordon Killoran 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Graham Rawlins 126 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
Harley Plamondon 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Harold Larson 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Jan Brettnacher 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Jeff Morrison 126 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
Jeff Spence 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Jeremy Bell 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Jim Spiers 126 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
Joe Boutilier 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Joe Cameron 126 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
John Cronkite 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
John Duncan 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
John Simson 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Judy Janzen 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Ken E. Enns 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Kevin Chase 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Kevin McAughtrie 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Kim Prystupa 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Kurt Franz 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Lee Deslauriers 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Leonard Steingarten 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Mark Murphy 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Mark Trenholm 126 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0
Martin Buchanan 126 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0
Mathew Blackburn 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Mickey Kiley 126 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
Mike Hamilton 126 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
Mike Mcmann 126 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Mike Tomczyk 126 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
Mike Woods 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Nathan Lagos 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Parker Wong 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Pat Dodman 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Pat Kiley 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Paul McDonald 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Rich Chapple 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Richard Gage 126 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0
Richard Holman 126 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
Rick Gunn 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Rick Joubert 126 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0
Roanne Dunbar 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Rob Austin 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Rob Saunders 126 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0
Roma Boutilier 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Scott Babcock 126 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
Scott Laird 126 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
Steve Sharkey 126 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Steve Smith 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Steve W. Smith 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Steve Webber 126 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Tim Breukers 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Tim Hanika 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Tony Peniuk 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Tyson Berkenstock 126 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
Walter Stutzel 126 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Wendy Reifel 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Yael Woodward 126 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Aaron Boles 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Aaron Coulter 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Al D’Alessandro 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Alex Benjestorf 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Allyn Harvey 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Amaro Lozano 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Andre Paquin 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Andy Beech 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Anita Painter 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Aren Knudsen 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Aron Lee 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ashley Campbell 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Barry Hamilton 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Barry Watchorn 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Benard Simoneau 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Beth Newton 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Betty Gage 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Bill Monaghan 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Bill Ridge 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Blair Belton 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Blair Howell 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Bob Barrett 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Bob Hall 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Bob Hirte 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Bob Mitchell 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Brenda Gunn 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Brenda McGovern 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Brent Marin 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Britt Hilton 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Brodie Doherty 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Bruce Preston 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Bryan Rickert 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Bryce Cockburn 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Burton Wright 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Cameron Trace 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Carol Beaudoin 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Carol Seable 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Cathy Moulton 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Celeste Howard 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Chad Mergaert 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Chad Prystupa 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Charlene Murphy 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Chris Fawbert 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Chris Perreault 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Chris Plamondon  220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Chris Sheilds 220 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Cindy King 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Clayton Stoner 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cliff Doerksen 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Constance Kretz 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Cory Albrecht 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Cyena McIntosh 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dan Babchuck 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Dan Hatch 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dan Heaven 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Dan Hryhoryshen 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Dan York 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Daphne Frost 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Darrel Tomlinson 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Darrell Mustard 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Daryl Mackie 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Dave Clarke 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Dave Gilson 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Dave Lavigne 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Dave Mackie 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Dave Nutt 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dave Roemer 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Dave White 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
David Ewart 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
David Nutt 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
David Richter 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Davin Saunders 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dawn Hamilton 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dean Benjestorf 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Del Kyle 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Denise Mitchell 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Diana Clowes 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Diane Moore 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Dick Nakamura 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Don Nicholas 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Don Poty 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Don Syroid 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Donna Garber 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Doug Rippingale 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Doug Robinson 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Drews Driessen-Van Der Lieck 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Dustin Marsh 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dwayne Mustard 220 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Dwayne Smith 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Dyson Ivanisko 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Ed Henri 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ed Hinkey 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ed Sharkey 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Ed Walker 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Elise Mah 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Eric Baikie 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Eric Christian 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Eric Cooper-Smith 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Eric Mainprize 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Eugene Berkey 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Eugene Titus 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Evan Hughes 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Forrest Owens 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Frances Cowen 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Francois Charron 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Frank Grasmann 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Frank Green 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Frank Greens 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Gael Arthur 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Gail McIntosh 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Garry Smith 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Gary Lawson 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Gary Phillips 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Gary Scales 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Gary Stotts 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Gary Tietzmann 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Gaylia Meitzen 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Geary Putt 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Gene Kneece 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Geordie Dunstan 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
George Deagle 220 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Gerry Mathiasen 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ginny Harrington 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Glen Daradics 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Glen Johnson 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Glen McIntosh 220 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Glenn Grycan 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Gordon Chu 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Gordon Cockburn 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Graeme Bull 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Grant Luscombe 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Grant Rosswarne 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Grayden McInnes 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Greg Main 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Harry Hemphill 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Heather Cornfield 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Hilford Burton 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Holly Davis 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ian Murphy 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Ivan Ferenc 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Jack Isbister 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
James Newman 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Jan Debruyn 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Jane Campbell 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Janeen Griffith 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Janice Tanche 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Janice Thorburn 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Jaret Knowles 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Jason Dault 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Jeff Forsythe 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Jeremy Morrow 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Jerry Strelioff 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Jim Busselle 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Jim Dodd 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Jim Mitchell 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Joel Dunstan 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Joey Coello 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
John Bentham 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
John Mannion 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
John Payne 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
John Plant 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
John Robinson 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Judi Spiers 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Judy Herder 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Julian Lee 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Julie Glaspy 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Justin Miller 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Justin Nairn 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Kalla Shields 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Kalyn Sutherland 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Karen Edinger 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Karin Maier 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Karl Kirkham 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Karren Hutton 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Kathy Klaus 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ken Hamer 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ken Kishiuchi 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ken Murakami 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ken Whiddington 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Ken Wilson 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Kent Moeller 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Keony Magnan 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Kevin May 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Kevin Winiski 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Kim Cornfield 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Laine McCarthy 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Lanett Barker 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Larry Dalziel 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Laurie York 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Lawrence Ranger 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Lee Watson 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Leeann Kruse 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Leslie Stapley 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Linda Barrett 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Lindsay Laverdure 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Lisa Nicholas 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Liz Cookson 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Lyle Unwin 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Lyndon Duke 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
MacKenzie Collins 220 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Mark Dobos 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mark Gage 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Mary McKim 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Mathias Mueller 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Maureen Dionne 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Michael Hives 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Michael Moscovich 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mick Pomeroy 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Mike Finn 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Mike Gage 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Mike Ives 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Miles Latrace 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Montagu Lee 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Myriam Belisle 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Nathan Boutilier 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Neil McLennan 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Norman Poole 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Owen Lagos 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Pat Jeffrey 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Pat Nelson 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Patty Brown 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Paul Brown 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Pelle Wybenga 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Perry Desbois 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Peter Britain 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Phil MacNeill 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Phil Vanbourgondien 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Phillip MacNeil 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Quentin Dodd 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Quinn Small 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Racho Jordanov 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Raeya Mackie 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ray Barriault Jr.  220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Reaya Mackie 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Reenie Wolfe 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Reg Mackenzie 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Reid Mitchell 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Rich Fryer 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Richard Baker 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Richard Cuddeford 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Richard Johns 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Rick Dionne 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Rick Eriksen 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Rick Sambrook 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Rick Tillapaugh 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Rob King 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Rob MacDougall 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Rob Nugent 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Rob Rowden 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Rob Spiers 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Rob Turko 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Robi Gareau 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Roland Hilton 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ron Gunn 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ron Herder 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Ron Perkins 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ross Whitmore 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Rowen Berkey 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Roy Dunbar 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Russel Sawchyn 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Russell Motion 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Ruth Heck 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ryan Brown 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ryan MacPhee-Gerl 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Ryan Newton 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Sally Kerr 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Sally Rickert 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Sarah Deagle 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Sayer Roberts 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Scott Campbell 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Scott Isbister 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Sean Batty 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Sean Rankin 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Shamra McClellan 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Shane Roberts 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Sheila Barriault 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Shirley Briley 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Shirley Murray 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Sonny Boon 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Sophie Cameron 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Stanley Harkof 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Stephanie Sprout 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Stephen Isbister 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Stephen Notley 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Steve Mitchell 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Steve Quintrell 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Steve Vandop 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Sue Berger 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
TJ Nelson 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Tanner Stolle 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Ted Maynard 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Tejay Delcasino 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Teresa Robinson 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Terri Sambrook 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Terry Blasco 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Terry Carr 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Terry Sambrook 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Tim Gudewill 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Todd Beadle 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Todd Campbell 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Todd Stewardson 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Tom Barrow 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Tom Dennis 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Tom Hooge 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Tom Kirkham 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Tony Anderson 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Tony Harvey 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Travis Uzzell 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Trevor Erickson 220 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Trygg Carlson 220 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Warren Barker 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Warren Howe 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Wes Sewell 220 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Will Duguid 220 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Will Stout 220 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

3. What do we know about CR Chinook?

(* more like what have others learned about Chinook in the Campbell, I don’t know much).

There has been a lot of information collected on Campbell River Chinook Salmon, including from Tyee Salmon captured in the Tyee Pool, however, most of this data is not readily available online. Data that is available (and that I have found) is summarized below. Data and study results from other systems have also been included for comparison and emphasis.

3.1. Quinsam vs. Campbell

  • The vast majority of Chinook Salmon returning to the Campbell River system are from the Quinsam River. Based on available escapement data for both systems, a mean of 12.5% Chinook returning to the system are from the Campbell River (varies from 6% to 25% between 1991 and 2019).

Figure 9: Chinook Salmon escpaement in the Campbell and Quinsam rivers from 1991 to 2021.

3.2 Tyee Club Data (presented by Campbell River Salmon Foundation)

  • The origin of fish captured in the tyee pool was determined by examining coded wire tags in adipose clipped fish and otoliths in non-clipped fish captured between 2015-2018 CRSF 2018. This data suggests the majority of captured fish in the pool (including undersize) are from the Quinsam Hatchery (mean = 61% across all years), followed by the Discovery Passage Seapens (mean = 17% across all years). The remaining 6% of fish are intercepted on route to natal streams (e.g. Big Qualicum, Nitinat, Washington State hatcheries).

  • Despite 79% of all captured fish having an adipose fin, only 16% were actually wild and not of hatchery origin. Meaning most hatchery fish were not visually marked (but did have thermal otolith marking), which is not surprising given resources required for fin clipping.

  • Ages calculated from a subset of otoliths of fish captured in the tyee pool between 2015-2018 (n = 48) shows that the majority of fish are Age-4 (overall mean = 75%), followed by Age-5 (17%) and Age-3 (8%). No Age-6 fish were identified in the sub-sample of heads that were aged.

  • Of the 350 fish captured in the Tyee pool between 2015 and 2018, 26% were Tyee salmon (n = 90). However, this varied between years with Tyee representing 18% to 32% of all fish captured between years.

3.2 Spawn Timing

  • Chinook spawning occurs from late September through early November and peaks in mid-October. Spawners typically reside in the river for ~12 days.

3.3 Age Class Structure

  • A roughly equal proportion of spawners return to the Campbell River as age-4 and age-5 fish (see Table 1) Sturham et al. 1999. Very few fish return as Age-6 (1% (1 of 99 fish) of Campbell River fish in Sturham dataset.

  • However, Ewart & Anderson,2013 report that Age-5 fish were dominant in 2012 (61%), with Age-4’s accounting for only 37% of the run, and age-3’s representing only 2%. Age-6 fish were absent from the 2013 dataset.

3.4 Size-at-Age

  • I have not found any measures of individual fish. But binned data from Sturham et al. 1999 (see Table 1) shows that Age-3 fish were between 500 mm and 699 mm (mean = 595 mm), Age-4 fish generally range in size from 550-949 mm (mean ~ 780 mm) and age-5 fish range from 700-949 mm (mean ~ 840 mm). Age-6 fish were identified, but accounted for less than 1% of all fish in the Campbell (n = 1 fish, 930 mm).
  • Fish in the Quinsam River are comparable in size to those in the Campbell, though hatchery fish generally return at a smaller size than their wild counterparts in the Campbell and Quinsam. Sturham et al. (1999) data suggest Age-4 and Age-5 wild fish may exceed 900 mm, while only Age-5 hatchery fish are likely to exceed 900 mm.
Table 4. Size at age of Chinook Salmon captured in Campbell River watershed from Sturham et al. 1999
Waterbody Age n % of Total Size Range <br>(mm) Mean Lenght <br>(mm)
Campbell River 3 6 7.8947368 500 - 699 595.0
Campbell River 4 34 44.7368421 550 - 949 779.5
Campbell River 5 35 46.0526316 700 - 949 842.5
Campbell River 6 1 1.3157895 900 - 949 930.0
Quinsam Hatchery 3 76 20.2127660 400 - 749 619.5
Quinsam Hatchery 4 225 59.8404255 550 - 899 743.5
Quinsam Hatchery 5 73 19.4148936 700 - 949 834.0
Quinsam Hatchery 6 2 0.5319149 750 - 849 784.0
Quinsam River 3 46 22.7722772 500 - 849 663.0
Quinsam River 4 114 56.4356436 550 - 949 733.5
Quinsam River 5 40 19.8019802 700 - 949 818.0
Quinsam River 6 2 0.9900990 800 - 849 838.0

Interesting side notes on recent studies examining trends in size of Chinook salmon.

  • Lewis et al. 2015 report that the size and age of Chinook returning to Alaska over the past 30-years has been decreasing and speculate that size-selective fisheries may be driving earlier maturation and declines in size (emphasis on speculate, they also point out that marine conditions and competition could produce similar results).
  • Ohlberger et al. 2018 built on this work and showed that there has been a reduction in the proportion of older Chinook age classes throughout most regions of the East Pacific and that length-at-age of older fish has decreased while length-at-age of smaller fish has increased.
  • Oke et al. 2020 state that relative to salmon maturing before 1990, adult Chinook salmon now produce 16% fewer eggs, transport 28% less nutrients and have lost 21% of their fisheries value.
  • Malick et al. 2023 reviewed 25 years of broodstock data from 43 hatcheries and found evidence of a significant reduction in length (and fecundity).

3.5 Fecundity

  • According to Ewart & Anderson (2013), female Chinook returning to the Campbell River in 2012 carried roughly ~5,700, a decrease from the roughly 6,000 eggs typically carried.

  • Decreasing fecundity rates have also been reported in larger studies. For example, Malick et al. 2023 compiled 2.5 decades worth of broodstock data from 43 hatcheries to examine trends in fecundity. They found significant declines in fecundity (and length), with the greatest drop in fecundity occurring over the past decade. This reduction in fecundity was primarily explained by a reduction in the size of spawners. Not particularly relevant, but they also estimate that a 1 mm reduction in length results in ~7.8 few eggs per female

3.6 Juvenile Life History

  • Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Campbell River have been studied intensively since 2015 (e.g. Thornton et al. 2022. These data suggest fry emerge in February-March and that nearly all Campbell River Chinook out migrate as Age-0+ juveniles from March through July. Smaller recently emerged Age-0+ fry are dominant and typically captured from March through early May (37 to 52 m). The remaining fish emigrate as slightly larger Age-0+ smolts (~64 to 88 mm) from May through July.

3.7 Estimated Juvenile Production

  • Estimates of juvenile Chinook production based on numbers of observed spawners have generally been less than numbers trapped throughout the out-migration period (Thornton et al. 2022), suggesting juvenile survival rates may be above average (e.g. >10%).

  • Juvenile survival was very low in both 2014 and 2016, which may be due to unusually high flows during spawning and/or incubation periods in each year.

3.8 Estimates of Marine Survival

  • Marine survival of unfed fry released from the Quinsam hatchery range from 0.2% to 0.4% (yes, that is less than 1%) (Ewart & Anderson 2013).

  • However, based on data from Welch et al. 2020, survival of coded wire tagged chinook in the Quinsam ranged from a low of 0.056% in 2007 to a high of 3.3% in 1977, with an overall mean of 0.74%. Mean survival since 2000 is lower (0.28%, 0.56% to 0.56%). These estimates are generally within the range of other hatchery released sub-yearling populations within the straight of Georgia (see image below using data from Welch et al. 2020).

Figure 10: Survival of coded wire tagged Chinook sub-yearlings (Age-0 upon release) released from hatcheries throughout the Strait of Georgia, including the Quinsam River. Note that y-axis is log transformed to better see range of values (labels are actual values). Figure prepared using data prepared by Welch et al. 2020

  • Welch et al. 2018 used coded-wire tag data to look at large scale patterns of Chinook salmon survival. This data demonstrates that survival collapsed over the past half century by a factor of ~3 and is currently ~1% in many regions (consistent with estimates available for the Campbell). Survival in relatively pristine and undeveloped regions (e.g. Northern BC and Alaska) was comparable to areas with extensive water management and land development that were previously considered to have poorest survival (e.g. Columbia River). The authors suggest the widespread trends in survival may be evidence that marine conditions are more influential than local factors (e.g. freshwater habitat).

  • Similar trends have been observed in other species. For example, Price et al. 2021 found a 69% reduction in wild Sockeye salmon returns (though overall returns are comparable to historic levels due to intensive enhancement); that population diversity has decreased by ~70%, and; that life history diversity has shifted with populations now migrating from freshwater earlier and remaining at sea for longer.

3.9 Catch and Release Mortality

When a fish is hooked, it undergoes stress and physiological responses which vary by species, sex and even fish size (see [Patterson et al. 2017]https://www.fecpl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/CSAS-FRIM-RESDOC-A-2017_010-eng.pdf) for a fantastic review of exactly what happens to a fish when it is being captured and how different factors such as species, sex, condition, water quality, predators etc. may influence mortality rates). While working with David Patterson, Steve Cooke and Scott Hinch’s teams on this study I developed an analogy to try to convey what a fish experiences when it is captured. It’s intentionally dramatic and usually goes something like this:

  • Consider a situation where you are walking down the street, you see a street vendor with a sign that says free donuts. The donuts look kinda funny but you are hungry and really like donuts, so you decide to take one. As you take your first bite you feel a shooting pain through your face and your mouth fills with blood. You have been hooked by the donut vendor and he is trying to pull you into a dark grungy alley. You obviously freak out, you yell and scream and try to sprint away as fast as you can. But you can’t break free, you are able to pull some rope out of the vendors hands but he eventually pulls it back in. You fight and fight to get away. Your whole body starts to burn because of the lactic acid that has built up from trying to get away. Eventually it is too much. You are exhausted, your muscles stop working and you can no longer fight to get away. You collapse and all you can do is gasp for air. The vendor eagerly drags your exhausted body into the filthy alleyway where he is waiting. He grabs you by the throat and pushes your face into a bucket of water. He holds it there for 0.5 to 3 minutes while he takes pictures he thinks will impress his friends on Facebook. The vendor uses pliers to cut and pull the hook out of your face - being careful not to damage his precious hook or donut. He may decide to put you out of your misery by hitting you in the head with a baseball bat, or he may just take your head out of the bucket and leave you on the ground so he can go entice someone else with his fake donut.

I personally don’t think I would survive this scenario. If I did, survive I would likely not leave my couch for days while I recovered and would be terrified to eat anything. I would also likely eat fewer apple fritters from Steiner’s. Fortunately, fish seem to be stronger and more resilient than me (and there aren’t (m)any donut vendors luring perpetually hungry sugar addicts into dark alleys).

Trying to get an estimate of capture and release mortality is extremely difficult and results from a single study are unlikely to be representative of all areas, fisheries, or seasons. [Cox-Rogers et al. 1999]https://psf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Download-PDF436-1.pdf completed a review of studies looking at mortality rates of marine captured and released Coho and Chinook in BC, WA, OR and CA. They report:

  • Mortality rates range from ~5% to over 30% and vary by gear type/angling method, fight duration, species, size and age, season and a myriad of other factors and recommend that the estimate of 15% mortality for captured and released Chinook applied across BC is not appropriate as it is not representative of all fisheries, does not include drop-off or long-term mortality. In addition, they state:

  • The authors state that active fisheries (E.g. trolling) are likely to have lower mortality rates than passive fisheries (E.g., mooching).

  • In BC, net pens were used to hold Chinook captured in recreational troll fisheries (using hootchies and flashers on downriggers) for 72 hrs to assess post-release mortality (Gjernes 1990, in Cox-Rogers et al. 1999). They report an overall mortality rates of 9.9%, but showed that mortality was size dependent: with mean mortality of 8.2% for 45-62 cm fish and 13.6% for fish >62 cm. Hooking location appeared to be a major predictor of survival, with lower survival among fish that sustained injuries to major blood vessels associated with gills and heart.

Take-away from this is that post-release mortality rates are likely higher for:

  • Larger fish than smaller fish;
  • Fish that fight to a point of complete exhaustion (vs fish that are captured and released quickly);
  • Fish that spend more time out of water prior to release;
  • Fish that are deep hooked or hooked in the gills.
  • Plus many other factors (season, water temperature, water quality, predator abundance, etc.)

When considered in the context of the Tyee pool, I would expect mortality to be higher than average given the size of fish and light tackle. However, even if mortality is 30%, that is still 70% less than mortality rates for fish that are kept - as Yari says, “100% of bonked fish are dead.” If all Tyee captured to date in the pool had been released it is very likely that there would be more large fish returning to the pool each year. However, switching to a strictly catch and release fishery would require larger conversations about the ethics of harming an animal purely for sport.

3.10 Hatchery Influence and Population Status

  • Ewart & Anderson 2013 report that 56% of the otoliths examined from 2012 spawners showed no signs of hatchery marking and are assumed wild. The remaining 44% are presumed to have originated from instream incubators (31%), seapen released smolts (4%) and Quinsam River released smolts (9%).
  • Assuming data presented by Sturham et al. 1999 is representative of the overall Quinsam population, we can assume hatchery origin fish make up 62% of Age-3 fish, 66% of Age-4 fish, 65 of Age-5 fish and 50% of Age-6 fish.

Interestingly, hatchery releases have never been higher

  • Ruggerone & Irvine 2018 show that intensive enhancement has resulted in the greatest abundance of salmon in the ocean than ever before (specifically pink, sockeye and chum) and that marine carrying capacity may have been reached within recent decades.
  • Nelson et al. 2019 present evidence that hatchery practices have altered size and time that juveniles are released and have reduced diversity of life history traits (e.g. size, age and timing of smoltification). The authors argue that current enhancement practices may release fish at a time and size that is preferred by predators (e.g. all fish being released at same time and size and are easy pickings for large aggregations of predators).

3.11 Ocean Range

  • Tagging studies have shown that maturing Chinook of BC origin are frequently located in Southeast Alaska, the west coast of Haida Gwaii and west and north coasts of Vancouver Island Myers et al. 1996 (see screenshot of map from Myers et al. 1996, below).

screenshot of map.

3.12 Exploitation Rates

  • Approximately 17% of fish released by the Quinsam hatchery are intercepted in Southeast Alaska commercial net (4.99%) and troll fisheries (11.95%) while an additional 1.84% that are intercepted in Alaskan sport fisheries Rosenberger et al.2022.
  • A court ruling in May 2023 almost shut down the 2023 SE Alaska troll fishery. Unfortunately for those aspiring to join the Tyee Club (and Orcas), that decision was reversed in late June, 2023 and the fishery occurred from July 1 to 12, 2023, not sure whether it will resume again at a later date.
  • I have not found any data reporting exploitation rates of Campbell/Quinsam Chinook within BC commercial and sport fisheries, however, given locations where maturing BC Chinook salmon are typically encountered and presumed migration routes, I think its reasonable to assume that these fish are intercepted by sport and commercial fisheries in North Coast Vancouver Island, Haida Gwaii and along the west and southwest coast of the Island. Without data to

4. What could be affecting returns and catches?

Off the top of my head, there are four things that are most likely to be affecting catches of Tyee salmon (in reality, there are many, many more. But for now let’s start with this).

4.1. Juvenile recruitment

Generally, juvenile recruitment refers to the process of small fish transitioning to an older life stage (e.g., an egg hatching into an alevin, a fry becoming a parr or smolt, a smolt maturing into an adult…). According to Thornton et al. 2022 Campbell River Chinook fry emerge in February-March and out migrate as Age-0+ juveniles from March through July. Smaller recently emerged Age-0+ fry are dominant and typically captured from March through early May (37 to 52 m) While larger Age-0+ smolts are less common and move out from May through July (64 to 88 mm). Given that Chinook move to the estuary as fry, lets figure out how many fish should be produced each year. To do this, we need to know:

  • The number of females that return to spawn. Sturham et al. 1999) report that ~60% of Chinook returning to the Campbell River are female. So multiplying the annual escapement values by 0.6 will give us total number females per year. + The number of eggs that each female deposits, which according to (Ewart & Anderson, 2013) has been close to 6,000 eggs-per-female, but now may be closer to 5,700 eggs-per-female.
  • The number of females that spawn successfully. I have no data, so lets assume 100% of females that make it to the river will spawn.
  • The number of eggs that hatch and the number of alevin that survive and emerge from gravel as fry. For ease, we will assume that 10% of eggs will survive the egg-to-fry stage.

So under normal conditions we could expect to see annual fry production ranging from 42,066 to 616,967, with a mean of 271,962 fry.

But abnormal is the new normal, so let’s look at the extremes. High flows through the incubation period can greatly reduce survival by scouring away gravel and eggs. Thornton et al. 2022 observed this in 2016 when very few Chinook (or other salmon) fry out migrated following a large spill event in November 2016 (and to a lesser extent in 2014).

If we assume that flows over 375 cms reduce fry out migration by 90% we see that fry production in years with high flow events is greatly reduced, which will have significant effects on future returns (Note that I have no idea what flows are required to scour gravels in the Campbell or what associated mortality would be, this is purely speculative. AND, mortality rates are likely to vary relative to flow (e.g., 375 cms may result in 75% mortality, 500 cms produces 85% mortality and 600+ results in 90% mortality). If we apply this assumption, we get the figure below, which shows how high flows may reduce juvenile recruitment.

Although major flow event that reduces egg-to-fry survival will reduce escapement, there is a silver lining. Given the age structure of Campbell River Chinook, the resulting reduction in escapement will be spread across multiple years. Arguably, this is a great example of bet-hedging. If all fish returned as Age-5 fish (which would be advantageous biologically since larger fish produce more eggs), then a high flow event could essentially wipe out a full cohort. Having a population returning at different ages ensures that fish return each year, even if something reduces survival of a single age-class or cohort.

Figure 11: Estimated annual Chinook Salmon fry production in the Campbell River, peak flows during incubation period and estimated impacts of high flow events throughout the incubation period.

Well, I am already going out on a limb here. Key takeaway here is that high flow events during sensitive spawning and incubation periods are likely to have a detrimental effect on juvenile survival, which in turn will contribute to a reduction in the number of Tyee that I fail to catch. But, an event that reduces survival will in a single year will not wipe out the run as fish are returning at different age classes.

4.2. Marine Survival

Overall, Ewart & Anderson, 2013 have estimated marine survival in the Campbell River system is approximately 0.003.

Coded wire tag data reviewed by Welch et al. 2022 marine survival of Quinsam Chinook released as fry from 1974 to 2014 ranged from 0.056% in 2007 to 3.3% in 1977, with an overall mean of 0.74% (2014 release group was 0.55%, which is best it has been since survival rate since 1998).

. This stuff is all way more complicated than I want to get into. For now I will pretend that marine survival stable (spoiler, they are not).

4.4. Fishing effort and catchability

For now, I am going to assume effort (# of boats fishing per tide/day) is constant and that catchability (percent of Tyees present that are captured) is stable. In reality, I would guess that effort has likely decreased over time and catchability has likely increased as peoples knowledge, skill and fishing technology have improved over time (not everyone though, I still suck). Either way, without some hard data there is not much I can do with this.

4.5. Environmental Conditions during the Tyee Season

Tyee fishermen may be among the toughest of tough (cough, cough), but even so, windy, wet seasons are likely to result in lower effort and fewer fish than relatively drier, calmer seasons. It is also possible that fish behaviour will change in response to river conditions. Certainly there was a lot of speculation that high flows during the 2022 Tyee season contributed to record low catches.

For now, I have little interest in combing through historic weather data. But, I already have flow data. So let’s see how river flows have varied between seasons.

  • 7.9% of fish will return as Age-3, 44.7% of fish will return as Age-4 fish, 46.1% will return as Age-5 fish and 1.3% will return as Age-6 fish (Sturham et al. 1999).

  • All fish captured in the Tyee pool are actually from the Campbell system.

We can expand this to estimate the number of Tyee salmon that will return if we make even more assumptions!

  • For fun, let’s assume all fish > 900 mm are Tyee Salmon (I know girth is important too, but I dont have girth data) and using the (Sturham et al. 1999) data as a rough guide I will assume that 10% of Age-4 male adults are >900 mm, 25% of Age-5 fish (males and females) are >900 mm and 75% of Age-6 fish are >900 mm.

5. What explains the variability between years?

Note, this is where shit is going to get weird. At this point I am mostly just making shots in the dark and everything should be considered very skeptically.

Off the top of my head there are a couple ways we can approach this:

1.) How many fish should come back based on past on escapement counts and available biological data. Basically, this is just making a bunch of estimates about survival at different life stages and then comparing our predicted returns to what actually returned. It won’t actually tell us anything, but is a fun exercise.

2.) We can look at what factors influenced how many fish were available for capture in the Tyee pool (i.e. how historic conditions may have contributed to observed captures), and/or;

3.) We can look at what factors influenced how returning fish were captured (i.e. conditions during the fishing season).

5.1 How many fish should come back?

We can VERY CRUDELY estimate the number of salmon that should return to the Campbell River if we make a couple of big assumptions:

  • Fecundity is ~5,700 eggs per female (Ewart & Anderson, 2013)

  • Sex ratios are 60:40 female to male using (Sturham et al. 1999) data for Campbell River.

  • Egg-to-fry survival is approximately 0.1, can’t recall where this number came from but its commonly used as a measure of egg-to-fry survival of wild fish (compared to 0.9 for hatchery reared fish). Give results from Thornton et al. 2022 it is likely that egg-to-fry survival in the Campbell is higher.

  • Marine survival (smolt to adult) is approximately 0.003 (Ewart & Anderson, 2013)

  • 7.9% of fish will return as Age-3, 44.7% of fish will return as Age-4 fish, 46.1% will return as Age-5 fish and 1.3% will return as Age-6 fish (Sturham et al. 1999).

  • All fish captured in the Tyee pool are actually from the Campbell system.

We can expand this to estimate the number of Tyee salmon that will return if we make even more assumptions!

  • For fun, let’s assume all fish > 900 mm are Tyee Salmon (I know girth is important too, but I dont have girth data) and using the (Sturham et al. 1999) data as a rough guide I will assume that 10% of Age-4 male adults are >900 mm, 25% of Age-5 fish (males and females) are >900 mm and 75% of Age-6 fish are >900 mm.

If we run these numbers, each female will generate 1.7 offspring, of which 0.14 will be Age-3, 0.76 will be Age-4, 0.79 will be Age-5 and 0.022 will be Age-6. Furthermore, each female will produce 0.24 Tyee salmon. Let’s take a moment to remember that these assumptions are terrible. Larger fish are more likely to produce larger fish, so in reality some fish will produce a decent number of Tyee and others will produce none. But let’s keep it simple for now and assume every fish is able to make an equal number of Tyees

Based on this, each female should produce 1.7 offspring that return to spawn. Which is less than ideal.

Figure 12: Predicted returns of Campbell River Chinook by age-class relative to measured escapement (does not include Quinsam River fish).

Well that’s interesting. There are periods when my predicted returns closely align with actual escapement (most closely from 2003 to 2007, but my values are comparable from 2003 to 2010). This suggests my estimates may not be WAY off but does not confirm they are correct. Other notes:

  • Also clearly periods when my predictions are off! Most notably from 1998 to 2002, 2011-2012, 2014 and 2019 to 2022.
  • There are number of years where something appears to have happened and fish simply did not return (2005, 2011, 2014).
  • There are also years where something positive appears to have happened and far more fish than expected returned to the river (1999 to 2001, 2020).

5.2 How many tyee should be returning?

Let’s look at little closer at how many Tyee salmon may be returning in a given year.If all Tyee salmon were captured each year, we would be actively selecting against large fish, so we would expect to see a rapid and continuous decline in the total number of Tyees returning each year (which I suppose we are). But, I have had the opportunity to snorkel the Campbell River canyon a number of times and have seen spawning Tyee, and in 2022 there were lots of Tyee captured in the river… but that was likely due to higher than usual flows throughout the season. Anyways, all this to say that its unlikely every Tyee is captured in the pool, and the actual number returning to the pool should be at least equal to or higher than the number captured.

Among anglers who have been involved in the club for a long time it is generally believed that most Tyee are Age-6. And it would make sense that larger fish are larger because they spend an extra year in the ocean. If this is the case, then my assumptions below are totally out to lunch (quite likely) as Sturham et al. 1999 data suggest that Age-6 fish represent less than 1% of the total return to the Campbell and Quinsam systems.

Reminder of key assumptions in the plot:

  • 10% of Age-4 fish will return as Tyee.
  • 25% of Age-5 fish will return as Tyee.
  • 75% of Age-6 fish will return as Tyee.

Figure 13: Comparison of catches of Tyee Salmon, predicted returns of Tyee Salmon and annual Chinook Salmon escapement counts.

Well, this figure either shows how poor my estimates are, or that a tremendous number of Tyee are intercepted (e.g. marine survival of Tyee salmon is lower than other fish).

Figure 14: Chinook Salmon escapement from rivers on East and West Coast of Vancouver Island.

Well, that figure sucks. But it shows how variable escapement is between years. On the East Coast of the Island, abundance increased in 43% of plotted streams and decreased in all others. Decreases

Relative to 2013, abundance in all plotted west coast streams was slightly reduced in 2014. There was a major crash in the Burnam River, but this is exaggerated by unusually high returns in 2013, 2015 and 2016.